Susan Colbert Medwid v. Commonwealth of Virginia
1382152
| Va. Ct. App. | Dec 6, 2016Background
- On Dec. 27, 2013, appellant Susan Medwid confronted her estranged husband Eugene at a residence he owned; an altercation ensued in the driveway in which appellant’s vehicle struck Eugene’s car and later struck his legs while he fled. Eugene testified she threatened to kill him and chased him; he called 911 and an off-duty officer later stopped appellant.
- Appellant testified she acted in fear because Eugene pointed a gun at her and that she left to get to a public place; she denied exchanging information or stopping to render aid because of fear for her safety.
- A bench trial resulted in convictions for felony hit and run (Code § 46.2-894) and other offenses; sentencing/conviction entries misnamed one count (corrected on remand to reflect attempted malicious wounding).
- On appeal, appellant argued insufficiency of the evidence for the hit-and-run conviction on four grounds: her actions were intentional (not negligent); her failure to render assistance was reasonable; the incident occurred on private property; and she was not required to notify law enforcement.
- The Court of Appeals held three of these arguments were procedurally defaulted for failure to raise them in trial court; it addressed the preserved argument (no duty to notify police) and rejected it, affirming the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for hit-and-run under Code § 46.2-894 | Medwid: she was not required to notify police because she feared for her life and/or the injured party (husband) knew her identity | Commonwealth: statute requires affirmative disclosure of identity/aid to listed persons or entities; appellant did not provide required information | Affirmed: evidence sufficient; duty to provide information not satisfied; failure-to-raise three other sufficiency theories barred by Rule 5A:18 |
| Whether appellant’s fear excused failure to stop/exchange information | Medwid: fear of husband armed with a gun justified leaving without reporting or exchanging information | Commonwealth: statutory duty is unqualified to stop and provide information; fear does not eliminate the duty to give required information | Court: did not accept fear as excusing statutory duty; trial court’s findings reasonable |
| Whether reporting requirement satisfied because injured party knew driver | Medwid: victim was husband who knew her identity, so statutory purpose met | Commonwealth: identification requirement serves broader investigatory and public-order purposes beyond mutual recognition | Court: rejected argument; identity by relationship insufficient to satisfy statute |
| Procedural default of appellate sufficiency arguments | Medwid: raised four sufficiency grounds on appeal | Commonwealth: three grounds were not preserved at trial | Court: three arguments (intentionality, reasonableness of failure to render assistance, private property) are defaulted under Rule 5A:18 |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Burnette v. Commonwealth, 60 Va. App. 462 (appellate review gives prosecution all reasonable inferences)
- Johnson v. Commonwealth, 14 Va. App. 769 (identification requirement serves investigation and public order)
- Tooke v. Commonwealth, 47 Va. App. 759 (flight and failure to give required information complete the offense)
- Herchenbach v. Commonwealth, 185 Va. 217 (duty to stop and give aid/information requires affirmative action)
- Groves v. Commonwealth, 50 Va. App. 57 (presumption that judge knows and applies the law correctly)